Borges' playcalling today: a hypothesis
Borges said this at a presser this week:
The approach hasn’t changed in 27 years. I script less plays than I used to. I script about 25. Now I script about 17 or so.
M ran 9 plays on offense in the first quarter, and then 10 more on the remainder of the possession to begin the 2nd. Give or take a few plays thrown in situationally during that time, Michigan's ability to move the ball ended when the script did. The obvious exception to this were two identical fullhouse Denard sweeps leading to a TD to end the first half; whether those plays represented a desire to go into the half down 14-17 that was thwarted by Denard's awesomeness is perhaps up for debate.
It seems that Borges takes great care in drawing up plays in preparation for the game, but then is extremely limited when it comes to adjusting on the fly, or seemingly even in remembering the basic gameplan. I was very impressed that Borges showed a willingness to not even test the middle of OSU's defense in the first half. It was exciting that he seemed to understand that M's interior OL was severely overmatched as he attacked the edges and stretched the D vertically. Needless to say, it was disappointing when he threw all this out in the second half.
It may be that OSU's D adjusted, leaving the middle looking so soft that Borges couldn't help himself. I don't think that's the case, but it sure didn't work either way.
November 24th, 2012 at 7:02 PM ^
So the hypothesis is that Borges can't adjust? I'd say that's a pretty good one, considering we scored 0 points in the second half.
November 24th, 2012 at 7:08 PM ^
November 24th, 2012 at 7:14 PM ^
I don't see evidence that he chokes in big games. He's had some good "big games" (last year against OSU, Notre Dame), and he's had some poor ones (Alabama, OSU this year). Sometimes the other team is just better, whether you call a good game or not.
November 24th, 2012 at 7:18 PM ^
I thought he called a pretty good one for Nebraska last year also.
November 24th, 2012 at 8:03 PM ^
what do the Neb and OSU games from last year have in common? Denard ran more than the he passed. This was very similar in the first half today. Denard had more than half of the teams yards; all by rushing.
i think denard only had 2 carries the entire second half. what a goddamn joke.
borges reverted to his same old i-formation bullshit that lost the iowa and msu games last year, and the notre dame game this year. we would have lost to northwestern last year if he kept up that bullshit in the second half of that game. he ran denard and we won. and now his bs lost the osu game this year with the second half playcalling.
i seriously think borges has altzheimers. he keeps forgetting what his team does best and forces his bullshit power i crap.
November 24th, 2012 at 8:38 PM ^
What are you talking about? Denard had a lot of carries in the second half, and got stoned on all of them, including a fumble.
I'm as critical of Borges' playcalling this game as the next guy, but "Denard didn't get the ball in the second half" if the least legitimate criticism I can imagine. If anything, Borges was too stubborn sticking with the Denard runs after it became clear that OSU had figured it out.
November 24th, 2012 at 9:09 PM ^
What are YOU talking about? What do you consider to be "a lot of carries?" Denard had four carries in the second half. Did you not notice him standing on the sideline? Al didn't even have enough sense to at least put him out there so the defense would have to account for his presence.
Denard today: 10 carries, 122 yards.
Smith and Rawls combined: 10 carries, 14 yards. Seven of their carries came in the second half, which makes sense considering Ohio State had clearly "figured out" Denard, whatever the fuck that means. Obviously, when our opponents "figure out" one of the most dynamic ballcarriers in all of college football, the solution is to stop handing him the ball and hand it off to two guys who are clearly inferior.
FFS, Borges luckboxed his way into the TD at the end of the half. 1:30 left and he sends Denard out there to run out the clock. Brilliant.
You sound like my Dad. He's always the first to knee-jerk defend anybody wearing a block M. He even pulled that shit with GERG. Open your eyes. Al sucked today.
November 24th, 2012 at 9:28 PM ^
The problem with using Denard is that you don't have the threat as a passer. The only way to use him them is as a runner. But as we saw his pass protection skills was terrlble which was to be expected. So basically you could only use him in a situation where he was either the QB or as a slot guy.
November 24th, 2012 at 9:50 PM ^
I'm not asking him to throw the ball. I don't want him at QB for designed runs, either. Put him next to Gardner and run the read option all day long. That's what I'm advocating. Even weighing pass protection, we did not play our best RB today, and it's not even close.
If you offered Meyer, Fickell, and whatshisname the opportunity to put one of our offensive players on the sideline in the second half, who do you think they would unanimously select? And we did it for them. We have a guy whose playmaking ability is head and shoulders above everybody else on the field and we barely made an attempt to get him the ball in the second half today. There is no excuse.
November 25th, 2012 at 12:35 AM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 5:42 AM ^
I was dumbfounded at the gameplan second half. The whole week we all talked about how we were gonna use Double D and shred Ohio. And we did for the 1st half. I am just confused. The I form plays? Keeping Denard or Devin off the field together?? Putting them both out there was our ONLY advantage!! WTF!!1
November 26th, 2012 at 7:24 AM ^
Put him next to Gardner and run the read option all day long. That's what I'm advocating.I agree that Denard should have played more in 2-back sets, but I don't think the read option was the way to go. We've never seen Gardner run it and even if he's adept at it, I'm not sure you want your only viable passer to be regularly carrying the ball.
November 24th, 2012 at 7:22 PM ^
November 24th, 2012 at 7:30 PM ^
That has been an issue all year and it has not gotten better. The question is why?
November 24th, 2012 at 7:53 PM ^
Because outside of Lewan our OL just simply isn't very talented? They're decent at pass protection but it helps to have two super mobile QB's. Look at the difference between this year and last. Lewan is Lewan, Schofield is much better at guard, Omameh seemed to regress this year, Barnum and Mealer are mediocre (to be kind). Those freshman and incoming freshman lineman can't get ready soon enough because we're not getting better as a team until that unit gets its act together.
November 24th, 2012 at 8:57 PM ^
There weren't big holes but we also didn't have a RB that could quickly hit the few that were there. Rawls didn't develop into the bruiser many thought he would be and Toussaint ran with less conviction than last year.
November 24th, 2012 at 7:33 PM ^
November 25th, 2012 at 5:48 AM ^
We looked great in the 1st half... i was excited to see that Al was maximizing the threat of Denard and Devin on the field together but like you said.. night and day. Beside the one good pass play to gallon the offense looked terrible. Its all on the coaching. The 4th and 3 we went for was terrible! There's just too much to say about how bad we effed this game up. it was ours man.
November 24th, 2012 at 9:36 PM ^
At the micro level, I don't think we can equate wins with coordinator capability (same goes for losses, for that matter). Last year's Notre Dame game saw Michigan win after scoring a mere seven points through three quarters of play. Michigan won the game, yes, but they won in spite of Borges's crappy play-calling and in large part because of Notre Dame turnovers and some pretty stout defense. Calling that game a "good" one for Borges is a huge stretch.
November 24th, 2012 at 11:31 PM ^
How was last year against Notre Dame a good performance from Borges?
November 24th, 2012 at 7:09 PM ^
Well when you put it like that, it sounds a little more obvious than intended. The point is that the plays that worked weren't even called on game day. The way he describes himself as not having a life outside of football because he's so consumed with thinking about new plays and whatnot amounts to very little if he can't think on his feet even a little bit. It may be that his strengths are those of a football educator or consultant more so than an OC.
November 24th, 2012 at 7:19 PM ^
He adjusted, all right. He adjusted from a good game plan, to a pretty damn bad one.
I wish he hadn't adjusted.
November 24th, 2012 at 8:01 PM ^
You know what's F-ing crazy? We are 8th in the country in 3rd down conversions... WHA?
November 24th, 2012 at 8:08 PM ^
because denard is almost automatic on short yardage when he runs that sweep and picks a crease. i don't think that play was called the entire second half. no, let's run smith up the middle!
November 24th, 2012 at 8:13 PM ^
That's what I'm saying! Why did we all of a sudden become so inept? Why did we go away from our strengths (DR in space on the edge) and play straight into their strength?
November 24th, 2012 at 7:04 PM ^
November 24th, 2012 at 7:05 PM ^
November 24th, 2012 at 7:07 PM ^
Finding a good OC is a lot easier than a good HC.
November 24th, 2012 at 8:28 PM ^
November 24th, 2012 at 7:09 PM ^
Thank you!
Borges has obviously not shown himself to be an A+ coordinator thus far, like Mattison has. But... if we get rid of him, what then? Who is waiting to jump aboard that's a proven winner? Are you prepared for the ugliness that is Three Different Coordinators in Four Years (see: Michigan's defense in the Rodriguez era)? It's easy to complain about something and say it's wrong, let's burn it down... but unless you have a better plan ready and waiting, it's all just pointess bitching.
November 24th, 2012 at 7:18 PM ^
November 24th, 2012 at 7:29 PM ^
Mattison should be considered the absolute best case when considering a coordinator hire. He designs and implements a good defense, he recruits excellently, he makes players better. But keep in mind that the only reason we got him was:
- We dropped a load of cash
- He's good friends with Brady Hoke
- He loves Michigan
He accepted what was essentially a downgrade in position out of friendship to Hoke and love of Michigan. Unless you know somebody else that falls into the same catagory, we're not going to snag the bestest offensive coordinator ever just because we really want one.
November 24th, 2012 at 7:34 PM ^
November 24th, 2012 at 7:46 PM ^
maybe... but if all you need to put together a championship contender is cash, then Texas wouldn't be staring down the barrel of consecutive 4-loss seasons.
November 24th, 2012 at 7:54 PM ^
November 24th, 2012 at 7:18 PM ^
We nearly will have a completely new offense next year - considering Devin started 4 games. Basically new OL. Who knows about Fitz. The time to make a change is now.
David Brandon loves putting his fingerprints on the program - he should call for this firing. There are offensive minds out there. Hoke pretty much let's the OC do whatever he wants so someone will come. We need to do it.
November 24th, 2012 at 7:21 PM ^
He could just do it. He's like, the Boss.
November 24th, 2012 at 7:30 PM ^
on this one. He has his fingerprints on enough things Michigan Athletics right now. Nobody wants to work for Al Davis, the AD (A stretch I know, but it shouldn't be his call)
But I do think Hoke needs to go in a different direction for OC. Admittedly I have been skeptical of Borges since day one.
I think Hoke himself needs to nut up and make the call.
I just don't (and never did) think you should go through years of railroading your highly-specialized offensive personnel so that Al Borges can run your offense
November 24th, 2012 at 7:35 PM ^
* This
November 24th, 2012 at 9:13 PM ^
Please, enough already about Borges leaving. He is not going anywhere. Hoke is not going to show him the door. We are stuck with him. Accept that fact, and deal with it.
Just hope that one day, the talent is good enough to make Borges look adequate.
November 24th, 2012 at 7:07 PM ^
My real worry here is not that Borges is completely and utterly incompetent. Obviously he's a good OC or he wouldn't still have a job. My worry is that I see the trajectory this program is on and I feel that we're rapidly approaching the point (if we're not already there) where Borges is going to be holding us back. We have such great talent coming in and such great coaching on the other side of the ball, and I would hate for offensive strategy like this to told us back from the highest level.
November 24th, 2012 at 7:18 PM ^
Actually he was out of a job until Hoke grabbed him from the mothballs.
November 24th, 2012 at 7:09 PM ^
November 24th, 2012 at 7:12 PM ^
It's called Galipoli and stars a young Mel Gibson. Worth seeing.
November 24th, 2012 at 7:20 PM ^
Jason Bourne is fluent in many languages. Al Borges is only fluent in "West Coast Offense". He kind of sticks out like a sore thumb trying to order off the Spread menu.
November 24th, 2012 at 9:12 PM ^
...were like you, you'd have just lost all your points, Hypocrite in South Bend.
November 24th, 2012 at 7:10 PM ^
Well, if he doesn't come back to coach for us next year I'm sure Kirk Ferenz would love to have him calling plays for Iowa next year. Seems like they have the same formula for winning.
November 24th, 2012 at 7:10 PM ^
If I'm not mistaken the OP has mistakenly made an intellegent observation grounded in facts and not hyperbole. This is clearly not called for tonight and should be deleted as quickly as possible so we'll have more room for the "Fire Borges", "Borges Sucks", and the ever popular "No Borges really doesnt suck" posts that are going up at the rate of about 10 per hour.
November 24th, 2012 at 7:10 PM ^
November 24th, 2012 at 7:46 PM ^
x 100000000000000000
Fuck.